Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1887-01-06
BASSETT'S TRIAL.
The Convincing Evidence of
Sarah Ann Bassett.
JUDGE SMITH DivoRoE
Judge Henderson COrrObOrates the
Opinion of Judge Zane ON the
Question of the first Wtfe's
Right TO Testify.

Court at Ogden yesterday morning, the
case against William Il. Bassett, charged
with polygamy, was again taken up.
The Court overruled the objection OF
the defense to the first wifes being al |
lowed to testify, and an exception was
noted.
Mrs. Sarah Ann Bassett was recalled |
to testify as to confidential communica-
ton from her husband with regard to his |
marrying Kate Smith. This was in 1884, |
on the 18th OF August.
Council for defense objected, overruled |
and exception noted. Defendant on that
Sunday morning asked her to take a
walk with him and then confessed to her
that he had been married at Logan,
when witness told him he had better
leave rs she would not live with him any
longer They subsequently separated. |
On the 9th OF November, 1885, she |
received summons for answering
in suit for decree OF divorce.
She met Bassett afterwards, having
conversation with him and telling him
she'd tell all she knew about his second
marriage ii he should press the divorce
suit. She had letters in her possession
by which she conld give him away; she
told defendant that he could no longer
live with her but he could go to Kate, if
It NOulu DiONlut lOi lltIStll anu Itl
children, without getting divorce.
At this point the witness broke down
with grief and had violent fit OF sob
bling.
Witness continuing said He told me
that he had done right anyhow without
consulting me; he never obtained my
consent.
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION.
n,, lo;,n o,o,a L., NJ,
Sheeks, the witness said: Am MEM
Der of the Mormon Church; was born in
Wales; did not know polygamy was an
article of faith when | came to Utah, in
1872; defendant was better posted than
l, and he talked about it fire.
quently; | have always expressed
my aversion to the principle !;
there was no understanding between us
on the subject; | neverapprehended that
he would take another wife, not even in
May, 1884, when Kate Smith visited our
house; on December 20, 1885, there was
another conversation; from the time
of the first conversation | had refused to
live with defendant.
Redirect and re-cross: At that CON
versation with defendant | was distressed
but not angry; have two children living
and have buried four.
IleTe MI. huWlltlS moved TO SIrlKe out
all the foregoing evidence as incom-
petent, quoting authorities to sustain his
position, the gist of which was denial
of the admissibility OF the extrajudicial
confession of the prisoner concerning his
alleged guilt. The counsel made an
elaborate argument on these points.
TIRE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Replied for the Government, maintain
ing the competency of the witness to tes-
tify, arguing that on account of the di-
vorce proceedings of Bassett against
Sarah Ann, Kate Smith was to be con-
sidered the legal wife. Both marriages
constituted the corpus deluti, and the
same evidence was admissible as to the
second marriage, which was admissible
regarding the second, no greater proof
being necessary for establishing the lat
ter than the former. The admission of
the accused was sufficient
The arguments occupied all the fore
noon, MIR. Sheeks having replied to Dick
son, dwelling on the force of the defend
ants confession and its weight in the
criminal prosecution, and claiming that
Bassett's admission Of his first marriage
did not form part OF a crime. No
corroborative evidence Outside of the
confession) had been produced that a
crime had been committed, that Kate
Smith had even been married.
The Court held that the first marriage
and subsequent cohabitation had been
proven, and it was matter OF fact for
the jury to decide as to the second mar
riage, for which there was circumstantial
evidence. The objection was overruled
and on exception noted.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
At the opening Of the afternoon session
Mrs. Bassett was recalled to the witness
stand by the prosecution. Defendant had
told her on August l6, 1884, that he had
Lewis, at Logan. Had lived separate
from the defendant before said time ;
never sent word, directly or indirectly, to
any officer of the law concerning the
matter; had been separated about two
years after his last marriage.
The defense renewed the motion for
striking out the testimony. Overruled :;
exception.
Mr.. Rawlins stated to the Jury that in
January, 1886, defendant had obtained
divorce from Sarah Ann and shortly
after married Kate Smith, no previous
marriage with the latter having taken
place. Kate Smith had been employed
at Logan at Mr.. Robins rs saleswoman
she never met BaSSett until after the
separation between him and his first
vile. He also handed in some documents
purporting to refer to the alleged divorce
proceedings.
Mrs. Kate Smith-Bassett said; was
married to defendant on January %,
1886, at Salt Lake City; never entered
into any other marriage relation with
him was born in Logan was engaged in
the Fourth Ward Coop store Tor five
years off and on till January IA, 1886; in
August, 1884, she was working in that
store continuously; kept some books I;
went to the store at 80 in the morning
and stayed till $50 p. M, sometimes
later; took dinner next door, breakfast
and supper at fathers home, where had
charge of the motherless family; she
identified the day book in which she had
made entries in August, 1884 never saw
Bassett that month, and even after was
only on speaking terms with him; visited
Salt Lake in October, 1884, staying
several nights there at different places /;
she met defendant only once and shook
hands with him in the presence of others
Cross: Had known defendant for nine
years, Gas passing acquaintances. Be
came more intimate with him about four
months before being married. Accepted
defendants
PROPOSAL OF MARRIAGE
In December, 1885, on condition that he
would get divorce from Sarah Ann, but
he had commenced his addresses TO her
in October she accepting them. NOT